Cho Jae-2014- Daejeon-4623 ( October 30, 2015)

Whether it satisfies the requirements for the self-defensation of land

It is not sufficient to recognize that the substitute land of this case meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of substitute land required by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by directly cultivating the substitute land for not less than three years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2015Gudan726 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

】 】

○ Head of tax office

July 21, 2016

August 25, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 11,029,890 on July 5, 2014 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on July 5, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the land after completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the land 1495 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “self-arable land”) prior to 267 Ri 1495 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). On September 2, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of thisA and transferred the said land.

B. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax by applying the provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Defendant on November 30, 2011.

C. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired shares of the said land after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to three-fifthss of the land located in Seo-gu and Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-si and 1-3, Seo-gu, Seo-gu (hereinafter “the land in this case”). On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to two-fifthss of the said land, and acquired the entire land. D. On July 5, 2014, the Defendant confirmed the site from February 26, 2014 to March 25, 2014, and on July 5, 2014, the Plaintiff made a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 11,029,890 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The purport that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been engaged in the cultivation of crops.

D. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal, but was dismissed on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant self-owned land from the date of acquiring the instant self-owned land to the date of transfer. Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute land in 2012 and continued to cultivate the instant substitute land directly until 2014, the transfer of the instant substitute land satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of soil. The Defendant’s disposition of the instant substitute land on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

The evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the self-arable land of this case and the substitute land of this case are directly cultivated for not less than three years (i.e., cultivation or cultivation, or cultivating or cultivating with its own labor not less than 1/2 of the farming work. It shall not be deemed that only creation of appearance which seems to be cultivated or cultivated and consuming time is engaged in cultivation or cultivation; hereinafter the same shall apply), and it is insufficient to recognize that the substitute land of this case was cultivated directly for not less than three years and satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption from land as required by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case based on this premise is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.